Maloney v. Sheriff

Ohio Supreme Court

Maloney v. Sheriff

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 463

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1918

DocketNo. 15832

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 463 (Maloney v. Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maloney v. Sheriff, 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 463 (Ohio 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

[464]*464It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; for the reason that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption obtains that the Governor of Ohio acted in conformity with the laws of this state in the issuing of a warrant for the petitioner upon a requisition of the Governor of Pennsylvania.

The court of appeals properly found that the record in this case does not purport to contain all the evidence presented to the Governor of Ohio by the agent of the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.

Therefore, the question as to whether Section 110, General Code of Ohio, is directory or mandatory, is not raised by the record in this case, and the decision of that question could in no way affect the judgment that must be entered here.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[464]*464It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed; for the reason that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption obtains that the Governor of Ohio acted in conformity with the laws of this state in the issuing of a warrant for the petitioner upon a requisition of the Governor of Pennsylvania.

The court of appeals properly found that the record in this case does not purport to contain all the evidence presented to the Governor of Ohio by the agent of the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.

Therefore, the question as to whether Section 110, General Code of Ohio, is directory or mandatory, is not raised by the record in this case, and the decision of that question could in no way affect the judgment that must be entered here.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, C. J., Wanamaker, Newman, Jones, Matthias, Johnson and Donahue, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-sheriff-ohio-1918.